J26_-_Answers_to_Offeror_Questions_A00002.pdf

M67854-19-R-7800 Attachment J26 – Answers to Offeror Questions (Amendment 0002)

RFP Document (i.e., Attachment J1, Attachment J2…, RFP, etc.)

Page/Section/ Paragraph/etc.

Relevant Text Question Government Answers

1 All Documents SF-33, Block 3; all headers on attachments

SF-33 Block 3 cites the RFP number as M67854-18-R-7800. Headers for attachments identify the solicitation number as M67854- 19-R-7800.

Will the government clarify the correct RFP number for this acquisition?

The correct solicitation number for the solicitation is intended to be M67854-19-R-7800.

Due to a glitch in the system, and the fact that the synopsis was released as M67854–18–R–7800, the solicitation number could not be updated.

Offerors can construe within the solicitation and attachments M67854–18–R–7800 or M67854– 19–R–7800 as having the same meaning, and referring to this solicitation.

2 RFP Pgs. 3-19; Section B All CLINs of the same type (i.e., FFP or COST) appear to have identical descriptions

What is the distinction between FFP CLINs identified for each contract period and Cost CLINs identified for each contract period?

The IDIQ provides the overarching CLIN structure. Task Order solicitations issued against and consistent with the underlying base IDIQ contract will provide more specificity with respect to the CLINs to account for training required as it relates to the Base Contract PWS, Figure 1 MTSS Support Services organizations and locations.

3 RFP

Pg. 40, Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference

FAR 52.215-21, 52.215-21 Alt II, 52.215-21 Alt IV

Given this is a multiple award IDIQ with Firm Fixed Price task orders (with cost-reimbursable travel and ODCS), it would seem that the government anticipates that task order requests for proposal will have adequate competition. Will the government confirm that these clauses are applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a task order proposal request?

FAR 52.215-21 sets forth the requirements for certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data for modifications.

The Government is unable to confirm that these clauses are applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a request for task order proposals because, by the terms of the clause, it applies to modifications (not awards).

4 RFP

Pg. 45, Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

FAR 52.215-12

Given this is a multiple award IDIQ with Firm Fixed Price task orders (with cost-reimbursable travel and ODCS), it would seem that the government anticipates that task order requests for proposal will have adequate competition. Will the government confirm that this clause is applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a task order proposal request?

FAR 52.215-12 describes subcontractor certified cost or pricing data. The Government’s intent is to rely upon adequate competition as an exception to seeking cost or pricing data where appropriate. The Government may also rely upon a different exception to requiring cost or pricing data as set forth in the FAR. However, the Government cannot confirm that this clause is applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a task order proposal request because, by its terms, this clause applies to subcontractor data and it is unclear what exceptions may be available to the

Government at the time the pricing decision is made.

5 RFP

Pg. 46, Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

FAR 52.215-13

Given this is a multiple award IDIQ with Firm Fixed Price task orders (with cost-reimbursable travel and ODCS), it would seem that the government anticipates that task order requests for proposal will have adequate competition. Will the government confirm that this clause is applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a task order proposal request?

FAR 52.215-13 sets forth the requirements for subcontractor certified cost or pricing data for modifications. The Government is unable to confirm that this clause is applicable only in the event that adequate competition is not received for a task order proposal request because, by the terms of the clause, it applies to modifications (not task order awards).

6 RFP

Pg 77, L.2.A.12.e

Pg 80, L.3..4.b

The Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of individuals, predecessor corporations or corporate parent/affiliates

Please provide the definition of “predecessor corporations” to be applied by the Agency in RFP Sections L.2.A.12.e and L.3.4.b.

Please see the amended solicitation.

7 RFP

Pg 77, L.2.A.12.e

Pg 80, L.3..4.b

The Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of individuals, predecessor corporations or corporate parent/affiliates

Please confirm that an entity that has undergone a name change due to a 100% stock / equity purchase would not be deemed a “predecessor company” under the RFP.

Please see the amended solicitation.

8 RFP

Pg 77, L.2.A.12.e

Pg 80, L.3..4.b

The Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of individuals, predecessor corporations or corporate parent/affiliates

Would a company that was acquired by and transferred its government contracts to an offeror through the novation process be deemed a “predecessor company” under the

RFP?

Please see the amended solicitation.

9 RFP

Pg 77, L.2.A.12.e

Pg 80, L.3..4.b

The Government will not evaluate the corporate experience of individuals, predecessor corporations or corporate parent/affiliates

If it is the Agency’s intent to exclude from consideration the organizational experience / past performance of “predecessor corporations” as referenced in RFP Sections L.2.A.12.e and L.3.4.b, has the Agency considered how such an exclusion will affect the offeror pool and competition for this contract?

Please see the amended solicitation. The Government did not intend to limit the offeror pool, but rather, to ensure that offerors did not leverage corporate experience no longer applicable to the remaining entity. The amended solicitation gives offerors an opportunity to explain why the Government should accept their corporate experience notwithstanding the existence of a predecessor corporation.

10 RFP Pg. 78, Section L.2.B.6 The due date for the submission of preliminary documents is 0900 Orlando, FL local time on Monday, 29 October 2018.

With the due date on Monday morning at 0900, to guarantee timely delivery the offeror must essentially arrange for delivery on Friday, loosing two days for production, mailing, and back-up. Will the Government consider moving the due date to Tuesday, 30 October?

The Government has extended the time due, but due to schedule constraints, will not extend the due date. Please refer to the amended solicitation.

11 RFP Pg. 78, Section L.2.B.6 The due date for the submission of preliminary documents is 0900 Orlando, FL local time on Monday, 29 October 2018.

If the Government will not consider moving the due date to Tuesday, will the Government make provisions for Sunday hand delivery or early Monday morning delivery?

The amended solicitation extends the time due until 1300, which will make it easier for offerors to submit proposals on Monday. If needed, the Government can accommodate hand delivery early Monday morning upon request.

12 RFP Pg 78, Section L.2.B.6 The due date for the submission of preliminary documents is 0900 Orlando, FL local time on Monday, 29 October 2018.

Under the current timeline, offerors must incur time and expense to prepare Phase II proposals before they know whether they have received a Go/No-Go evaluation of their Phase I submission. Will the government consider issuing an amendment to the solicitation with the specified due date for the Phase II submission upon completion of their evaluation of Phase I submissions?

While the Government will make every effort to promptly evaluate the Phase I submission, the Government does not intend to extend the due date due to time constraints.

13 RFP Pg. 81, Section L.3.6

The Government expects to conduct Oral Proposal presentations with all Offerors who have satisfactorily submitted all of the preliminary documents.

Will the Government please provide information on the size and nature of the evaluator audience to which we will present?

With respect to the nature of the audience, the Government has assembled a technical evaluation team comprised of individuals with technical expertise in the solicitation as well as representatives from contracts and other relevant support functions. The Government has not finalized the size of the audience, but anticipates approximately 10 individuals.

14 RFP Pg. 82, Section L.3.8 This paragraph requires the oral presentation to be deliver in PowerPoint format.

PowerPoint presentations include a Notes Page feature associated with each slide. Will these notes be accepted and subject to evaluation?

Please see the amended solicitation; No information shall be included in the “notes” section of the PowerPoint presentation.

15 RFP Pg. 82, Section L.3.9

Offerors should not expect to have access to the location more than 10 minutes before the start time.

The Government will provide a room outfitted with large screen televisions on which the presentations may be displayed.

Will the government provide a diagram of the room that allows offerors to rehearse in a similar way?

No. Given that the Government has more than one space available to conduct oral presentations, and that the spaces available for use are not identically configured, there is no certainty, with respect to the configuration of the room, that a space with a defined configuration will be available for use on the date provided for an Offeror’s oral presentation.

16 RFP Pg. 82, Section L.3.9

Offerors should not expect to have access to the location more than 10 minutes before the start time.

Offerors are expected to provide any additional equipment deemed necessary.

Will the government provide a podium for the use of presenters?

The Government cannot guarantee that a podium will be available for presenter use, but presenters are welcome to use a podium if one is available in the room assigned for oral presentations.

17 RFP Pg. 82, Section L.3.9

The Government will not reschedule Oral Proposals due to technical difficulties;

Offerors must be prepared to proceed based on the hard copy Oral Proposal presentation in the event of equipment failure.

Please confirm that each of the 5 presenters will be allowed to bring in a hard copy of the presentation.

The Government confirms that Offerors are permitted to bring one hard copy presentation for each of their presenters/Offeror attendees.

18 RFP

Pg. 83, Para. L.4.1;

SF-33, Block 9

Offerors shall AMRDEC a copy of the Oral Proposal presentation, SF33, small business subcontracting plan, Past Performance Proposal and a cover letter to sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil by 0800 local time Orlando on the date set forth in Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation.

There is no due date provided in Block 9 of the SF-33. What is the due date for the Phase 2 submission?

The solicitation has been amended to reflect that the due date for receipt of the Phase 2 submission is 0800 local time Orlando 13 November 2018.

19 RFP Pg. 87, Section M.4

Further, the Government may assign a “No- Go” to any preliminary documents that do not substantially and materially comply with ALL of the solicitation requirements delineated in Section L

Will the Government please more clearly define the criteria for making a determination that preliminary documents do not “substantially and materially” comply with ALL of the solicitation requirements in Section L?

The Government has provided detailed instructions regarding the content and form of the preliminary documents, including providing the wording for certain of the documents. Offerors who, for example, fail to follow the instructions in Section L, omit documents in their Phase I submission, or who fail to fully complete Attachment J12 risk the Government determining that their preliminary documents do not substantially and materially comply with ALL of the solicitation requirements in Section L.

20 RFP Pg. 87, Section M.4

The Government is going to employ a two-step evaluation process during source selection. The first step is comprised of an initial screening of the preliminary documents to determine whether Offerors have met a limited set of “Go/No-Go” criteria.

Will the Government please describe their down select process in the event they receive a significant number of phase 1 proposals that meet the Go/No Go criteria?

Pursuant to L3., paragraph 1, the Government expects to allow all Offerors who have satisfactorily submitted all of the preliminary documents to participate in Phase 2. The Government does not intent to employ a down select process (or competitive range determination) to reduce the number of proposals evaluated between Phase 1 and Phase 2.

21 RFP

Pg. 88, Section M.5.

5th paragraph

The Government intends to evaluate “submits a proposal that conforms to the requirements of the Solicitation” in accordance with the “Go/No-Go” criteria referenced above and

Will the Government please define the “Go/No-Go” criteria?

Please refer to paragraph M.4 of the solicitation, which states in part, “the Government may assign a ‘No-Go’ to any [p]reliminary documents that do not substantially and materially comply with ALL of the solicitation requirements delineated in Section L.”

22 RFP

L.4.1, Submission Instructions for Phase 2, p 83

Offerors shall AMRDEC a copy of the Oral Proposal presentation, SF33, small business subcontracting plan, Past Performance Proposal and a cover letter to sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil by 0800 local time Orlando on the date set forth in Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation.

Block 9 on page one of the solicitation is blank, could the Government clarify what the submission due date is for Phase 2?

Please see the answer to question 18.

23 J25

Past Performance Reference #3: Training Events/Exercises And

Formal Learning Centers, p 7

Offerors are not to change the spatial structure of this form, i.e., borders, block size, etc.

The Scope and Complexity portion of Past Performance Reference #3 allocates only one page to the write-up, in contrast to References #1 and #2, which allocate two pages.

Will the government consider increasing the pace available to respond scope and complexity to Reference #3 to two pages?

Attachment J25 (Past Performance Proposal Past Performance Reference) has been updated with the space constraint for Past Performance Reference #3 increased to coincide with the same amount of space provided for Past Performance References #1 and #2.

RFP

L.2.A.12 (a. – d.), p76

12. Offerors shall complete Attachment J12 for each of the following Organizational Experience requirements:

a. Organizational Experience #1: Instructional Systems Design/Systems Approach to Training and Education. The Offeror shall complete Attachment J12 demonstrating its experience using the Instructional Systems Design/Systems Approach to Training and Education in support of a Department of Defense formal course(s) of instruction for a minimum of one (1) year of continuous performance where a portion of performance occurred within the past five (5) years.

b. Organizational Experience #2: Supporting Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) Training Events. The Offeror shall complete Attachment J12 demonstrating its experience:

(1) developing training exercise concepts, (2) creating (new), or modifying (existing) training exercise scenarios, and (3) providing modeling and simulation systems operation, planning and support for military training and exercises for Regiment/Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) echelon of operating forces command, or above Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) training events where a portion of performance occurred within the past five (5) years.

Offerors should address the contract requirements as part of their description.

c. Organizational Experience #3: Network and System Administration/Cybersecurity. The

Will the government evaluate …

- only the portion of work performed in the last five years, or,

- if any portion of the work was performed within the last five years (e.g., 12 continuous months of support, but only the last 10 months within the last five years), the government will consider the full 12 months of experience?

To the extent that any portion of the work was performed within the last five years, the Government will evaluate the entire period of time that the work was performed. Thus, in the question posed, the Government would evaluated the full 12 months of experience, to include the portions of work that extend beyond the five year period, provided that a portion of the work was performed within the last five years.

Offerors should note that certain organizational experience requirements include a continuous performance requirement in addition to a minimum and recent requirement.

Offeror shall complete Attachment J12 demonstrating its experience performing network and system administration, and cybersecurity (i.e., RMF) functions for a minimum of one (1) year of continuous performance where a portion of performance occurred within the past five (5) years.

d. Organizational Experience #4:

Geographically Dispersed Contract Performance. The Offeror shall complete Attachment J12 demonstrating its experience providing educational and training services to the U.S. Armed Forces at multiple geographic locations for a period of one (1) year of continuous performance where a portion of performance occurred within the past five (5) years.

25 RFP

L.3.1, p79

L.3.4.a, p79

The proposal submitted during Phase 2 will consist of the following: … Past Performance Proposal, Word or PDF; Attachment J25

[Note: Attachment J25 provides forms to reference three contracts, each describing past performance in one of three specific topic areas.]

Offerors will be required to identify three (3) contract efforts that display recent and relevant past performance that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform in accordance with the PWS.

Are offerors required to submit three separate contract references (one for each topic), or may we use the same contract to respond to more than one topic area?

Offerors are required to submit a contract reference for each past performance entry, however, Offerors may use the same contract for each of the three past performance references (i.e., the same contract to demonstrate past performance for each topic).

26 RFP L.3.4.a

“Recent" is defined as any portion of the work having been performed within the past 5 years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation. In the event than an Offeror has over five (5) years of continuous service on an effort, it should note the work performed within five (5) years of the proposal submission date and use this data to address the requirements in paragraphs (i) – (vi).

Will the government evaluate only the portion of work performed in the last five years?

Yes.

27 RFP L.3.4.a

“Recent" is defined as any portion of the work having been performed within the past 5 years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation. In the event than an Offeror has over five (5) years of continuous service on an effort, it should note the work performed within five (5) years of the

If any portion of the continuous service was performed within the last five years (e.g., five continuous years of support, but only the last 18 months within the last five years), the government will consider the full five years of experience?

The Government will not evaluate any portion of the work that was performed more than five years ago for purposes of past performance.

proposal submission date and use this data to address the requirements in paragraphs (i) – (vi).

28 RFP

Section F, Delivery

Information, pp 25-26 Deliverables 0002 through 0207

Will the Government confirm that the period of performance (PoP) will begin in December

The Government anticipates awarding the ID/IQ contract in December, and the delivery dates approximate the Government’s best guess as to the delivery dates. The Delivery Information included with the solicitation refers to the ordering period applicable to the base indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract.

However, actual periods of performance will be as specified in each task order for services awarded under the multiple award contracts.

29 RFP Section L.3.9

L.3.9 The Government will inform Offerors of the start time for the oral presentation, which will be during business hours. Offerors should not expect to have access to the location more than 10 minutes before the start time. The Government will allot up to 150 minutes for each Offeror to present their Oral Proposal.

Does the Government anticipate any breaks in the 150 minutes allotted for the presentation?

No.

30 RFP Various

There are numerous references to using the date set in “Block 9” for Past Performance recency, PPQ deadline, and Phase 2 submission but “Block 9” appears to be blank.

Can the government please clarify the Due Date and Time for Block 9?

Please see the answer to question 18.

31 RFP page 75 of 90 There is a reference to Facility Code as part C of what the offeror shall submit as Phase 1 documentation.

Given that the CAGE Code and DUNS # are also requested separately, can the government please clarify what “Facility Code” they are referring to?

Please see the amended solicitation, which has removed the Facility Code reference.

32 RFP page 76 of 90

12.0 states that “offerors shall complete Attachment J12 for each of the following Organizational Experience requirements”.

Are each of the experience references required to come from the prime contractor or will the government allow one experience reference to be provided by a major subcontractor?

The Government will only evaluate information regarding Offerors (i.e., the prime contractor).

Due to the extended period of performance for the IDIQ MATOC award, the Government is unwilling to evaluate the organizational experience for any proposed subcontractors.

33 RFP page 76 of 90

Section 11.0, the government states that “the offeror shall submit copies of its current FPRA, FPRR, and any DCAA audits conducted within the past 10 years regarding the offeror’s accounting system”

If the offeror has a DCAA-approved accounting system, will the government accept documentation of our DCAA-approved billing rates in lieu of formal FPRA/FPRR documentation?

Yes. The Government considers evidence of a DCAA-approved accounting system, without more, sufficient to satisfy the request in L.2.A.11.

Furthermore, submission of DCAA-approved billing rates may be submitted in lieu of formal FPRA/FPRR documentation.

34 Solicitation/RFP Page 74, Section L.2, Para

A.12.b

Section indicates, “The Offeror shall complete Attachment J12 demonstrating its experience:

(1) developing training exercise concepts, (2) creating (new), or modifying (existing) training exercise scenarios, and (3) providing modeling and simulation systems operation, planning and support for military training and exercises for Regiment/Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) echelon of operating forces command, or above…”

We understand there is an overall intent to increase competition and engage contractors who have provided training support services to other DoD clients. However, the language as currently written would restrict competition to only those firms with specific Marine Corps experience. Would the Government accept similar (scale, scope and organizational level) LVC Training support experience contractors have provided to other Services?

Yes. The reference to Regiment/Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is intended to allow other Service equivalent experience, and should be read as Regiment, or Group, or MEU or similar echelon of operating forces command or above. There is no intent to restrict competition to only those firms with specific Marine Corps experience, although the question appropriately denotes the Government’s focus on DOD experience.

35 Solicitation/RFP Page 83, Section L.4, Para

Text indicates Contractors must submit Phase 2 proposal requirements “to sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil by 0800 local time Orlando on the date set forth in Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation.”

There is no date identified in Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation. Will the Government provide the date due for submittal of Phase 2 proposal inputs?

Please see the answer to question 18.

36 Solicitation/RFP Page 90, para M5, b (1)

Section indicates, “To be considered “Acceptable” the Large Business Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with the above-referenced FAR and DFARS clauses must meet the following DoD Small Business Subcontracting Goals:

33% Small Business; 5% Woman Owned Small Business; 5% Small Disadvantaged Business; 3% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Business; and 3% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, or provide an explanation of why the goals are unreasonable under the circumstances with a plan tailored to meet the goals during the period of performance.”

Will the Government validate the overall requirement is 33% and the percentages for the listed socioeconomic categories are a subset of that overall goal?

Yes.

Attachment J1: Base

Contract PWS Page 24, Para 3.1.14

PWS indicates Contractors “shall designate… the Primacy POC responsible for Program Management…and Task Order Manager.”

Are these designations required as part of the orals presentation or at TO execution?

The Government will not evaluate individuals proposed as program management or task order managers as part of the oral presentations. The Government considers the assignment of these responsibilities to be contract management issues and appropriate for discussion at the post award conference unless otherwise set forth in a request for task order proposals.

38 M67854-19-R-7800 P 76 / Section L.2. A.8

Submit evidence of a valid Top-Secret Facility Clearance as determined by the U.S.

Government in the form of a valid, executed DD Form 441, Department of Defense Security Agreement, which is current as of the date of the submission.

A DD Form 441 is not the form that shows a company’s Facility Clearance. The appropriate form is a DDS FL 381-R. Would the government correct this paragraph to stipulate the correct document for submission to serve as evidence of a Top-Secret Facility Clearance

Please see the amended solicitation. The form reference has been updated.

M67854-19-R-7800 P 80 / Section L.3. 4.c Offerors shall instruct past performance points of contact to send completed PPQs to Ms.

Sandi Brubaker via email at sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil no later than the closing date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation.

There is no date and time specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation. Would the government please complete Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation.

Please see the answer to question 18.

40 M67854-19-R-7800 P2 / Section B. 1 The ID/IQ MATOC will fall under the NAICS Code 611519.

Would the government consider changing the ID/IQ NAICS to something broader like 541330, and then award Task Orders in the most precise NAICS code possible? The government says on page 25 that there will be three initial task orders: 1) MSTP – this is not a Technical nor Trade School, nor do they support Technical or Trade Schools.

They support General Officer level USMC staffs AND Master’s Degree conferring Universities. 2) BSC / CAST Facilities – this is not a Technical nor a Trade School, nor do they support Technical or Trade Schools.

These are systems-based organizations that provide computer based support AND exercise/scenario design to USMC units. 3) MCLOG/TBS/MAWTS-1, and SOI-E.

These are a variety of schools, some of which could be considered NAICS Code appropriate. However, the support here consists of the smallest likely task order by a great deal. In addition, if other work is added over the course of the 10 year MTSS contract, it is unlikely to fall into the narrow window of the 611519 NAICS code.

No. The education and training portfolio, within the Knowledge Based Services (KBS) portfolio group (as categorized by the taxonomy for the acquisition of services referenced at DFARS PGI 237.102-74), has 15 product service codes (PSCs) for education and training services. With respect to Sector 61 – Educational Services, this sector is the appropriate sector within the 2017 NAICS Manual that aligns to the aforementioned training and education PSC codes. This sector, in general, is characterized as "comprise[ing] establishments that provide instruction and training (emphasis added) in a wide variety of subjects." Moreover, the 2017 NAICS Manual discusses imparting instruction, "through diverse means, ... [and that] [t]he training provided by these establishments may include the use of simulators and simulation methods" (emphasis added). Lastly, "[a]ll industries in the sector share this commonality of process, namely, labor inputs of instructors with the requisite subject matter expertise and teaching ability" (emphasis added). With respect to the MTSS requirement, supporting the training and education, including both formal and informal instruction, with subject matter expertise in the warfighting functional areas is a hallmark of the MTSS requirement, as is the use of simulators and simulations to enrich the learning environment. Therefore, Sector 61 is a logical sector to situate the requirement for classification purposes. This NAICS code selected (NAICS 611519), as a NAICS code within Sector 61, is selected based on the supporting rationale provided for above, as well as its inclusion of specialized military training within the illustrative examples. Thus, the contracting officer has determined this is the NAICS code that best describes the principal purpose of the service being acquired when considering the industry descriptions available in the NAICS Manual. The NAICS code selected (NAICS 611519) has been determined to best describe the principal purpose of the knowledge-based education and training services being acquired under this solicitation.

41 M67854-19-R-7800 P 75 / Section L.2. A. 2.a.

2. Offerors shall submit:

Copies of the latest available financial statements

Can the government specify precisely what financial statements they require to be submitted?

The Government does not want to dictate the type of financial statements given the various types of offerors and possible range of acceptable documentation. However, Offerors should submit documents that support the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

42 M67854-19-R-7800 P 80 / Section L.3.4.c

Forward a copy of the PPQ attached to this RFP to the past performance contract customer’s Contracting Officer Representative for any past performance examples…

On one of the contracts we utilize for both Corporate Experience and Past Performance, Assistant CORs are assigned due to geographic reasons and subject matter expertise. Can ACORs be queried to provide Past Performance Questionnaire responses?

Yes, PPQ’s may be completed by Alternate Contracting Officer Representatives, if appointed in writing for the respective contract by the Contracting Officer.

43 M67854-19-R-7800 P 81 / L.3.6 The government expects to conduct Oral Presentations with all Offerors who have …

What is the intended window for conducting Oral Presentations?

The Government anticipates hearing oral presentations beginning the morning of Tuesday, 13 November 2018. The window depends on the number Offerors who complete Phase I, but it is anticipated that most, if not all, oral presentations will be held that week.

44 M67854-19-R-7800 M.5., a)Technical

Approach, 3)

Note 1: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

However, an Offeror whose descriptions of their past performance indicate that they do not understand the scope and complexity of the solicitation will be considered “unacceptable” because failure to understand the scope and complexity is a basis for the Government to determine it does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

This is to clarify. Will you consider awards to offerors who only have relevant past performance in one of the Organizational Experience requirements, or none at all, but who can otherwise demonstrate in the Oral Proposal that they can do the work?

The question confuses past performance with organizational experience, each of which are separate solicitation requirements.

Offerors who fail to demonstrate each of the five Organizational Experience requirements will be assigned a “No Go” and will not have an opportunity to proceed to the oral presentations at Phase 2.

The Past Performance Proposal will be submitted and evaluated as part of Phase 2. Past Performance will be evaluated as cited in the Note of the solicitation.

45 M67854-19-R-7800 Page 70 of 90

252.204-7008 Compliance With Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls (OCT 2016)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision--

Controlled technical information, covered contractor information system, covered defense information, cyber incident, information system, and technical information are defined in clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.

(b) The security requirements required by contract clause 252.204-7012 shall be implemented for all covered defense information on all covered contractor

If we have not yet implemented the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, ``Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations'' because we have not had a need to due to no having access to any controlled unclassified information, but we plan to become compliant in the near future, are we eligible for an award?

By submitting an offer, the Offeror represents that it will comply with the terms and conditions of the award, including DFARS 252.204-7008, or must submit its request to vary from any of the security requirements to the Contracting Officer as part of its cover letter as set forth in solicitation L.3. Offerors are reminded that, any exception, deviation, or request for waiver from the instructions provided in Section L, or any other section of this solicitation, may render an Offeror’s proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

information systems that support the performance of this contract.

(c) For covered contractor information systems that are not part of an information technology service or system operated on behalf of the Government (see 252.204-7012(b)(2))--

(1) By submission of this offer, the Offeror represents that it will implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, ``Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations'' (see http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171) that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the contracting officer not later than December 31, 2017.

(2)(i) If the Offeror proposes to vary from any of the security requirements specified by NIST SP 800-171 that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall submit to the Contracting Officer, for consideration by the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO), a written explanation of—

(A) Why a particular security requirement is not applicable; or

(B) How an alternative but equally effective, security measure is used to compensate for the inability to satisfy a particular requirement and achieve equivalent protection.

(ii) An authorized representative of the DoD CIO will adjudicate offeror requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171 requirements in writing prior to contract award. Any accepted variance from NIST SP 800-171 shall be incorporated into the resulting contract.

(End of provision)

46 M67854-19-R-7800 Page 74 of 90

Any prospective offeror who desires Attachments J18 through J21 of this solicitation must complete, sign, and return the “Request for Controlled Distribution Documents” within this MTSS Request for Proposal, Attachment J13. The signed and dated document shall be submitted via email to sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil.

Is there a due date for requesting the controlled distribution documents?

Controlled distribution documents will be made available to prospective offerors that properly execute Attachment J13 prior to the closing date/time of the solicitation. Offerors are encouraged to request documents as soon as possible.

47 RFP Page 78 “The due date for the submission of preliminary documents is 0900 Orlando, FL local time on Monday, 29 October 2018”

Please confirm this is the accurate due date for Phase I Proposals.

The date is correct, however, please see the answer to question 10.

48 RFP Page 83

Offerors shall AMRDEC a copy of the Oral Proposal presentation, SF33, small business subcontracting plan, Past Performance Proposal and a cover letter to sandi.brubaker@usmc.mil by 0800 local time Orlando on the date set forth in Block 9 of page 1 of the solicitation.

Please provide the date that should be found in block 9 of the Solicitation.

Please see the answer to question 18.

49 RFP

Page 25 of 90 / Section F /

Paragraph 1.

Individual task orders issued under the IDIQ MATOC will contain period and place of performance and delivery information at the task order level.

How does the government envision dividing up the task orders for this overall effort? Will it be by functional area, specific class development/delivery, specific exercise life cycle event, or some other possible delineation of efforts?

The Government intends to issue customer specific task orders; however, the Government is leveraging an IDIQ to maintain the flexibility to issue task orders with performance requirements that reflect the Government’s needs.

50 RFP

Page 30 of 90 / Section G /

3rd Paragraph

For a task order competition under FAR

16.505 the Government is required to afford all IDIQ MATOC awardees a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered. Accordingly, the Government will evaluate each IDIQ MATOC awardee’s proposal fairly, similarly, and in accordance with the request for task order proposal solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

For mutually supporting Task Orders—that may be won by separate companies—such as exercise design and exercise analysis/assessment; how does the government foresee integration of efforts in order to provide a consistent, accurate, and complete task order deliverable?

The Government is not aware of a situation in which the Government would issue a “mutually supporting Task Order” that would separate the exercise design and exercise analysis tasks between separate companies. In the event a contractor identifies a practical problem with the Government’s request for task order proposals, the contractor should identify its concerns as part of the Task Order question period.

51 RFP

Page 30 of 90 / Section G /

3rd Paragraph

For a task order competition under FAR

16.505 the Government is required to afford all IDIQ MATOC awardees a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered. Accordingly, the Government will evaluate each IDIQ MATOC awardee’s proposal fairly, similarly, and in accordance with the request for task order proposal solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

For mutually supporting Task Orders—that may be won by separate companies—such as exercise design and exercise analysis/assessment; is it envisioned that the awarded company will be required to effect the coordination, or will the coordination between efforts be the responsibility of the government?

Please see the answer to question 50.

RFP A001

J25 Pg. 79 / L3.4.a

L3.4.a. states in part: “Offerors will be required to identify three (3) contract efforts that display recent and relevant past performance ……; Offerors may use the same contract number to demonstrate successful performance for purposes of the three contract efforts.”

L.3.4.a.v) states in part: “(Relevant is defined to include) The scope and complexity of the effort in comparison to this solicitation with respect to

• Network and System Administration and Cybersecurity,

• Curriculum Development and Doctrinal Publications, and

• Training Events/Exercises and Formal Learning Centers. “

Attachment J25 is structured with separate sections corresponding to each of the three relevancy areas described in reference L.3.4.

a.v).

L.3.4.a is confusing in that it talks to three “contract efforts” implying three separate contracts; yet Amendment 1 states that offerors may use the same contract for each of the three contract efforts.

L.3.4.a.v) implies that each of the three (3) contract efforts should demonstrate relevance to each of the three identified scope and complexity areas.

Question: Would the Government please confirm that they are looking for one (and only one) contract effort to demonstrate Network and System Administration and Cybersecurity; one contract effort to demonstrate Curriculum Development and Doctrinal Publications; and one contract effort to demonstrate Training Events/ Exercises and Formal Learning Centers?

Or should each contract record demonstrate relevancy all three defined scope and complexity areas?

The term “contract efforts” refers to those work requirements, further elaborated in L.3.4.a.v, performed under contract. To that end, Offerors are NOT required to have performed EACH of the work requirements described in L.3.4.a.v under a single awarded contract. On the other hand, Offerors MAY, if their past performance record allows them to do so, utilize a single contract to demonstrate a combination of more than one, and up to all, of the work requirements described in L.3.4.a.v within a single awarded contract. Offerors are limited to submitting a maximum of three past performance contract references.

57 RFP Amendment 0001 M.5.a).3, pp 16-17 Note 2: The Government will not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will

Offerors that possess the size and scale necessary to perform the type of work

Please see the amended solicitation (0002).

52 RFP Pg. 82 The text margins in the slide deck shall be no less than one inch.

This requirement creates a space constraint.

We request that this requirement be removed to allow for better display of content.

Please see the amended solicitation. While the Government has removed this requirement, Offerors are encouraged to use appropriate margins and formatting to enhance the audience experience and understanding.

53 - - We assume the Government will be issuing a task order immediately following the IDIQ award.

Would the Government please provide the anticipated date of task order release?

The Government will issue multiple task orders;

the initial task order requests for proposals are anticipated to be released concurrently with the post award conference.

54 RFP Pg. 82 Text font in the slide deck shall be in Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, no smaller than 18 point.

Will the government please change the text font size to 16?

Please see the amended solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that while the Government has removed this restriction, the rule of thumb is that a font size of less than 24 point is generally too small to be reasonably read in most presentation situations.

55 RFP Pg. 75

Copies of the latest available financial statement(s) covering the Offeror’s organization, i.e., the entity that will be awarded and perform the contract.

Please confirm that the most recent financial statement is sufficient.

Yes. The most recent financial statement, to the extent it aids in the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination, is sufficient.

successfully perform the required effort if the contractor is found to have more than three (3) Non-Systems CPARS within the past 5 years of this proposal submission date as specified in Block 9 on page 1 of the solicitation with “Quality” evaluation area rated as Marginal or below, more than 2 cure notices, or any Terminations for Default. This includes Offerors who may otherwise have been found “Neutral” as described in Note 1.

anticipated under this contract are executing thousands of contractual task orders every year. The quantities in Note 2 reflect an arbitrary limit that is not reflective of any Offeror’s ability to execute the work required by the Government. In addition, most of these contracts have no relevance to PM TRASYS and/or the scope of work for this IDIQ. Will the Government remove Note 2 and instead rely on the objective Past Performance rating criteria already reflected in the solicitation?

58 RFP

L.3. 2nd Phase Proposals Paragraph 4(a)(ii)

Total dollar amount of funded performance (i.e. base and all exercised options, or awarded orders with any exercised options.

Unexercised options of unfunded ceiling value SHALL NOT be included.

With respect to FFP awarded contracts, should the Offeror list the awarded amount of the contract (Base and all Exercised & Non- Exercised Options) or just the amount exercised and funded (Base and Exercised Options)?

Irrespective of contract type, just the amount exercised and funded. The total dollar amount of funded performance can be generally stated as the net value of all contract actions that obligate (i.e., add), or deobligate (i.e., subtract), funds on/from a contract, which is of interest to the Government. The value, or ceiling, of a contract, to the extent that the value, or ceiling, of a contract has not been fully funded and consumed, and may never be fully funded and consumed, is not meaningful to the Government.